A fundamentally flawed study claiming that scientific evidence of a climate crisis is lacking should be withdrawn from the peer-reviewed journal in which it was published, top climate scientists have told AFP.
Appearing earlier this year in The European Physical Journal Plus, published by Springer Nature, the study purports to review data on possible changes in the frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, and other extreme weather events.
It has been viewed thousands of times on social media and cited by some mainstream media, such as Sky News Australia.
“On the basis of observation data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident,” reads the summary of the 20-page study.
Four prominent climate scientists contacted by AFP all said the study—of which they had been unaware—grossly manipulates data, cherry-picking some facts and ignoring others that would contradict their discredited assertions.
“The paper gives the appearance of being specifically written to make the case that there is no climate crisis, rather than presenting an objective, comprehensive, up-to-date assessment,” said Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office.
The authors ignore the authoritative Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change (IPCC) report published a couple of months before their study was submitted to Springer Nature, Betts noted.
Read rest at Phys.org
Read more about the study here.
Richard Betts, more than most people, should surely realize that this is not how you do science. If you disagree with a particular scientific study, you challenge it on a factual basis and point out exactly where it is flawed. [bold, links added]
There is a well-established method of doing this, which is to ask the Journal to print a response to the original article. Normally the paper’s authors would of course have a right of reply. That is the way the real facts are established.
To simply demand that the Journal withdraw the paper is the worst sort of censorship and reminds us all of the dark days of Climategate when such practices were rife whenever anybody dared to challenge the climate establishment’s agenda.
The study they complain about, Alimonti et al, was covered by me here, and was actually a pretty level-headed, uncontroversial assessment of the actual data:
Betts refers to the IPCC, but despite the hyperbolic headlines of the Summary for Policymakers, there is actually nothing in last year’s AR6 that contradicts anything in this latest study.
It is ludicrous of Friederike Otto to highlight heat waves, but not to acknowledge the corresponding reduction in extremely cold weather. Why do more heatwaves make for a climate emergency, when more cold waves don’t?
Let’s look at some of the other “emergencies” that Betts seems to be imagining:
1) Heavy Precipitation
It is generally accepted, and emphasized by the IPCC, that globally precipitation has increased since 1950, and this is recognized by the new paper:
But far from this being a bad thing, in many areas of the world it has actually served to relieve drought, for instance in the US, India, China, and Central Asia.
In terms of floods, however, the IPCC can find no evidence that they are getting worse, merely the usual regional changes we expect to see over time:
2) Droughts
As you might expect from increasing global precipitation, Alimonti et al find no evidence of increasing drought, indeed the opposite is true:
3) Tropical Cyclones
According to the IPCC themselves, there are no long-term trends in TC activity, something that most hurricane experts agree with.
Betts is not in line with the science if he maintains otherwise.
4) Weather-Attribution Models
With all of the data contradicting claims of a climate emergency, what do Betts and co resort to? None other than those thoroughly discredited weather-attribution models, which Otto herself is in charge of!
(Otto, by the way, works for The Grantham Institute for Climate Change, well known for stoking climate alarm, and has even written a book, “Angry Weather”, which purports to “link” bad weather with global warming!)
Who to believe? Computer models or the lying data?
What Climate Emergency?
Alimonti et al don’t deny that the world is a little bit warmer than a century ago, nor that the climate has been changing.
But after analyzing the official data, they failed to find any evidence of a climate crisis. This is from the paper’s summary:
“On the basis of observation data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident…”
Betts and co. may disagree, that is their prerogative. But if they do, they need to present the facts why, instead of blackmailing The European Physical Journal Plus into withdrawing the paper.
Read more at Not A Lot Of People Know That
Alfred deGrazia would have loved to write a book about this.
Eminent so-called “scientists” objecting to the presentation of
VALID PROOF derived through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD,
and all because it might interfere with their MONEY MACHINE.
From the beginning of the global warming movement censorship has been important. In the early days climate alarmist would find out the speaking schedules of scientist that opposed them, and have their talks canceled. There is very good reason for this. The climate change movement can stand up to a free exchange of ideas. If even 20% of the mainstream media presented an unbiased coverage, the movement couldn’t exist.
By the way, the free speech concept on this issue doesn’t include a lawyer who has been hired to argue to the nth degree against every article and comment on a website such as this one. That is also an attempt at censorship.